Landmark Judgments of Supreme Court

Question 1

In which case SC held that Fundamental Rights are immune to amendments by Parliament?

Answer 1

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 1967

Question 2

ultra vires

Answer 2

LAW

acting or done beyond one’s legal power or authority.
“at one point they argue that the legislation is ultras vires”

Question 3

Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India

Answer 3

The order issued by President derecognizing rulers of former Indian States is ultra vires and illegal

Later on, this order was made law through the 26th amendment in 1971

Question 4

Kesavananda Bharti v. the State of Kerala 1973

Answer 4

An amendment to the constitution can’t become law if it violates its basic structure

Question 5

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab 1974

Answer 5

Neither the President nor the Governor is to exercise the executive functions personally

Question 6

In which case SC held that limited amending power of Parliament cannot become unlimited by amending it?

Answer 6

Minerva Mills v. Union of India 1980

Question 7

Section 87 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act struck down

Answer 7

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice R F Nariman, has struck down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was inserted through 2019 Amendment Act. The provision provided for an automatic stay on enforcement of the award once the opposite party challenged the award in court.

The Bench noted that on an average, about six years were spent in defending these challenges, and the money, therefore, is stuck for a long time. The case was filed through a writ petition in the Apex Court by infrastructure firm Hindustan Construction Company

Question 8

No dilution in the provision of the SC/ST Act

Answer 8

The Supreme Court said it would not dilute the provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989, and made it clear that its Constitution Bench had already held that anticipatory bail could be granted in such matters if courts concerned felt no prima facie case was made out.

Question 9

Rafale Fighter jet Deal case

ruled an improtant point which is……

Answer 9

RTI Act supersedes the Official Secrets Act

In an important observation, the Supreme Court said the Centre could not withhold disclosure of documents citing ‘national security’ as a reason, if concealing the documents could do more harm than disclosing them. The observation dismissed the Centre’s primary objection of privilege on the documents. This observation by Justice K M Joseph came during a judgment on the Rafale fighter jet deal case

Question 10

Alok Verma V. Union of India

Answer 10

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), on 23rd October 2018, took away the powers and functions of Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter a writ petition was filed challenging the validity of the said order and the petitioners argued that the order passed by the Central Government was violative of Section 4 of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act and the Supreme Court guidelines issued in Vineet Narain case. Under Section 4A of the DSPE Act, the approval of the Selection Committee is necessary to divest the powers of the director of CBI.

Judgment: On 8th January 2019, the Supreme Court held that the orders issued by the Central Government were not valid and thus quashed them. Alok Verma was reinstated with his powers and duties.

Question 11

Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and others v Government of West Bengal and others,

Answer 11

Public officials and the State Government are subject to the rule of law and cannot gag free speech due to fear of violence. The ban imposed on the Bengali film was overturned and compensation was provided to the producers.

Question 12

In re Matter of Great Public Importance touching upon the Independence of the Judiciary,

Answer 12

CJI of India accused in a sexual harassment case

A three-judge bench held an inquiry against the former CJI, Mr. Ranjan Gogoi in the matter of sexual harassment allegations made against him by an ex-employee of the Court. Later, he was given a clean chit.

Question 13

BK Pavitra and others v Union of India,

Answer 13

The constitutional validity of the Karnataka Act approving consequential seniority in promotions for the reserved category was upheld.

Question 14

Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v State of Bihar,

Answer 14

Consumption of liquor in a private vehicle in a public space, comes under the definition of ‘public space’, according to the Bihar Excise Act, 2016.

Question 15

Manoharan v State

Answer 15

Death penalty was given for committing the crime of rape and murder of minor girls.

Question 16

Sitaram Yechury v Union of India,

Answer 16

A state-wise ban was imposed on the State of Jammu and Kashmir after the Parliament abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution. A virtual lockdown was imposed and various political leaders and non-political persons were detained since August 5, 2019, when the Centre passed an Act taking away the special status that was granted to the State. On 19th August 2019, general secretary of the Communist Party of India, Sitaram Yechury filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court challenging the illegality and constitutional validity of the detention imposed leader of his party Mohammed Yousuf Tarigiami. The Supreme court allowed the petitioner to visit the detenu however, the judgment passed was highly criticized as the bench did not question the grounds on which detention was placed by the Central Government. Moreover, the petitioner was permitted to only meet his leader and was not allowed to carry out any other political activities. He was also required to submit a report on his return to the Apex Court.

Judgment: In response to the habeas corpus petition filed by the general secretary of the Communist Party of India, the Supreme Court allowed him to visit the detenu. However, restrictions were imposed on his meet and no justification was given to validate the detention imposed by the Central Government.

Question 17

DAV College Trust and Management Society v Director of Public Instruction

Answer 17

NGOs which are directly or indirectly, substantially financed by the government come under the RTI Act and thus every citizen has the right to ask for information from them.

Question 18

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat and others,

Answer 18

The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman held that even at the post cognizance stage a Magistrate can invoke his powers under Section 156(3) of CrPC. A 43-year-old judgment which held that Section 156(3) of CrPC can only be invoked at a pre cognizance stage was overruled.

Question 19

M Siddiq through Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and others,

Answer 19

Ayodhya verdict case

The disputed land was given to Ram Lalla and the Central Government has been ordered to formulate a scheme and set up a trust within 3 months for the construction of the temple.

Question 20

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subhash Chandra Agarwal,

Answer 20

CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.

Question 21

Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd,

Answer 21

The 5 Judges Bench doubted the correctness of referring to the Finance Act as a Money Bill and thus it was referred to a larger Bench. However, the Court upheld the legal validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017

Question 22

Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers Association,

Answer 22

Judgment: To determine questions relating to essential religious practices, the Sabarimala case was referred to a larger bench.

Question 23

Manohar Lal Sharma v Narendra Modi

Answer 23

Rafale deal upheld

The Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi entered into a deal with France to purchase 36 Rafale fighter aircraft. After the deal was signed multiple litigants filed petitions in the Supreme Court claiming that the deal made by Mr. Modi was not according to the established procedure. Questions regarding the decision-making process, pricing irregularities, offset partners were made in the petitions. In 2018, the Court after hearing both the parties concluded that there were no irregularities based upon the evidence procured and thereby a review petition was filed, challenging the earlier judgment passed. This year the Court dismissed the review petitions and held that it had limited jurisdiction under the defence contracts.

Judgment: All the defendants held not guilty and the rafale deal upheld after the Court dismisses the review petitions filed.

Question 24

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v Union of India,

Answer 24

Section 87 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act expelled

Before the 2015 Amendment, the then Section 36 of the Act provided that an arbitral award could not be enforced if there was a pending petition and this was termed as the automatic stay. This Section was substituted in 2015 and the Act stated that unless a stay order has been passed the arbitral award does not become unenforceable and mere filing of a petition is not enough to render an arbitral award as not enforceable. The 2015 amendment also provided that the changed Act would apply only to arbitral proceedings which commenced on or after the passing of 2015 Amendment. Section 87 of the Act introduced as an amendment in 2019 discarded the changes made in the 2015 amendment and re-introduced automatic stay. The Court held that this would cause a delay in the arbitration proceedings and increase interference of the Court in arbitrary matters thus defeating the whole purpose of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Judgment: Supreme Court struck down Section 87 of the Act, introduced in the 2019 Amendment as it was arbitrary.

Question 25

A.K. Gopalan Case (1950)

Answer 25

SC contented that there was no violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21 and 22 under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, if the detention was as per the procedure established by law. Here, the SC took a narrow view of Article 21.

Question 26

Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

Answer 26

This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights (the First Amendment’s validity was challenged). The SC contended that the Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.

Question 27

Berubari Union case (1960)

Answer 27

This case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of Berubai to Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the Parliament cannot make laws under this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement.

Question 28

Golaknath case (1967)

Answer 28

The questions in this case were whether amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not. SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13, and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required. Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.

Question 29

Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)

Answer 29

This judgement defined the basic structure of the Constitution. The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.” This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down any amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.

Question 30

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case (1975)

Answer 30

The SC applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the grounds that it was beyond the Parliament’s amending power as it destroyed the Constitution’s basic features.

Question 31

Menaka Gandhi case (1978)

Answer 31

A main issue in this case was whether the right to go abroad is a part of the Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21. The SC held that it is included in the Right to Personal Liberty. The SC also ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be “just, fair and reasonable.”

Question 32

Minerva Mills case (1980)

Answer 32

This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgement struck down 2 changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic structure. The judgement makes it clear that the Constitution, and not the Parliament is supreme.

Question 33

Waman Rao Case (1981)

Answer 33

The SC again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. It also drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date.

Question 34

Shah Bano Begum case (1985)

Answer 34

Milestone case for Muslim women’s fight for rights. The SC upheld the right to alimony for a Muslim woman and said that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion. This set off a political controversy and the government of the day overturned this judgement by passing the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, according to which alimony need be given only during the iddat period (in tune with the Muslim personal law).

Question 35

MC Mehta and Union Of India (1986)

Answer 35

This case dealt with 3 issues: Scope of Article 32; rule of Absolute Liability or Rylands vs Fletcher to be followed; issue of compensation. SC held that its power under Article 32 is not restricted to preventive measures, but also remedial measures when rights are violated. It also held that in the case of industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, Absolute Liability was to be followed. Finally, it also said that the amount of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the industry so that it will be a deterrent.

Question 36

Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)

Answer 36

SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. It upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions (like creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota should not exceed 50%, etc.)

Question 37

S. R. Bommai case (1994)

Answer 37

In this judgement, the SC tried to curb the blatant misuse of Article 356 (regarding the imposition of President’s Rule on states).

Question 38

Vishaka and State of Rajasthan (1997)

Answer 38

This case dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace. In the judgement, the SC gave a set of guidelines for employers – as well as other responsible persons or institutions – to immediately ensure the prevention of sexual harassment. These are called ‘Vishaka Guidelines’. These were to be considered law until appropriate legislation was enacted.

Question 39

Samatha and State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)

Answer 39

This judgement nullified all mining leases granted by the Andhra Pradesh State government in the Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining operations. It declared that forest land, tribal land, and government land in scheduled areas could not be leased to private companies or non-tribal for industrial operations. Such activity is only permissible to a government undertaking and tribal people

Question 40

I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu 2007

Answer 40

This judgement held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court. The 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution is a list of acts and laws which cannot be challenged in a court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts and laws mentioned in the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be changed or challenged, but any attempt to amend or add more acts to that schedule, will suffer close inspection and examination by the judiciary system.

Question 41

Pedophilia case (2011)

Answer 41

The SC restored the conviction and sentence of 6-year (RI) rigorous imprisonment imposed on 2 UK nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case. The court said that “the sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes.”

Question 42

Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)

Answer 42

The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia with guidelines. The need to reform India’s laws on euthanasia was triggered by the tragic case of Aruna Shanbaug who lay in a vegetative state (blind, paralysed and deaf) for 42 years.

Question 43

NOTA judgement (2013)

Answer 43

This judgement introduced the NOTA (None-Of-The-Above) option for Indian voters.

Question 44

Lily Thomas and Union Of India (2013)

Answer 44

The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of 2 year imprisonment would cease to be a member of the House with immediate effect.

Question 45

Nirbhaya Case (2014)

Answer 45

Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and definition of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973.

Question 46

National Legal Services Authority and Union of India (2014)

Answer 46

This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. The SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education, etc.

Question 47

Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)

Answer 47

The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony.

Question 48

Right To Privacy (2017)

Answer 48

The SC declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under the Indian Constitution.

Question 49

Repealing Section 377 (2018)

Answer 49

The SC ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional “in so far as it criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex.”